Nyaya Concept of Cause & Effect Relationship

The present book Nyaya concept of Cause and Effect Relationship is a product of arduous inquiry into the genesis and development of the concept of causality in the Nyaya-vaisesika system of Indian Philosophy. The unfoldment of the intricate thought processes in all the philosophical branches of India, despend upon abstract relations that directly correspond to the relation of causality.

The book sketches out the blossoming up of the concept of causality in the hands of seventeen Nyaya-vaisesika philosophers right from Kanada and Gautama to Bhavananda Bhattacarya. It also applies special thrust to the dating and making notes upon the treatise Karanata-vicara on the concept. Special care has been taken to present before the readers the beauty of philosophical argumentations prevalent in India.

Dr. Arun Ranjan Mishra (1959) is a known Oriya poet with eight collections of post-modern Oriya poems to his credit. After working as a Research Fellow and subsequently as a Research Associate in the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune (Maharashtra) from 1983 to 1990, he is now a Reader in Deptt of Sanskrit, Pali & Prakrit, Visva-Bharati Santiniketan (W.B).

His book Contemporary Sanskrit writings in Orissa (2006) published by the present publisher has earned accolades from the Indological readers. Classical Sanskrit, Modern Sanskrit, Indian Aesthetics and Poetics and Indian Logic are his fields of academic interest.

Behind any consistent human behaviour lies the notion of cause and effect. Beginning probably from the experience that water causes the quenching of thirst, or that food causes the satisfaction of hunger, the notion has travelled a long path. Today not only pure sciences but all humanities also progress hand in hand with the notion of cause and effect. Karabi Sen, in her book: Dimension of Causality and the Philosophy of Speciesism (Calcutta, 1980), deals with some issues from science in terms of causality. There is a chapter (iv), 'Causation in History' in the book: What is History, by Edward Hallet Carr. (London 1961). In the past this notion is studied from various angles, no doubt. But the purpose of our thesis is to investigate what exactly the Naiyayikas were thinking on the subject and how it all began and developed. In Indian philosophy the Naiyayikas and the Buddhists have shown great concern about it. David J. Kalupahana has written a worth-studying book.: (Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Hawaii, 1975).

Ours is also not the first work on the causality in the Nyaya-Vagisesika system. Dr. M.C. Bhartiya's Causation in Indian Philosophy with special reference to Nyaya-Vaisesika (Ghaziabad, 1973) has been a very useful work on the subject. But as he has preoccupied himself with the other schools of Indian philosophy in that book, it is natural that his attention is divided. Seldom he goes into the discussions of the neo-logicians on the concept. And since he has discussed the concept aspect-wise without reflecting upon any philosopher fully, the historical development of the concept on the system has not come under the purview of his work. Keeping this in mind, we have designed the present work on the concept in a historical perspective and have tried to concentrate, philosopher-wise. Here we have discussed over seventeen philosophers. They are Kanada, Gautama, Vatsyayana, Pragastapada, Uddyotakara, Jayanta Bhatta, Bhasarvajna, Vacaspati Misra, Sridhara, Udayana, Sivaditya, Sasadhara, Kesava Mika, Gangesa, Sankara Misra, Raghunatha Siromani and Bhavananda. By putting them chronologically we have tried to suggest the origin and development of the concept from Kanada to Bhavananda. Thus a philosopher's personal contribution to the concept, predecessors' influence on him and his impact on the succeeding philosophers, became clear. Since we have intended to preserve the argumentative spirit of the philosophers even in our own frame-work of presentation, automatically, many a time, the style of our discussion happens to be the, opponent's objection and the Siddhantin's reply. However, in due places we have given our own judgements and opinions and thereby shown the progress of the concept from one philosopher to another. In many places it has become necessary to elaborate and clarify the stands of both the sides through our reading between the textual lines. We humbly submit that the task is not so easy and a lot more remains to be done.

Karanatavicara

Bhavananda, the last of our enlisted philosophers, is taken up by us with a special concentration. We met the name Karanatavicara for the first time as the name of a treatise by Bhavananda in the New Catalogus Catalogorum (Vol. III, p. 379) and it aroused a sudden interest. Even neither S.C. Vidyabhusana (in his History of Indian Logic) nor Gopinatha Kaviraja (in his Gleanings From the History And Bibliography of the Nyaya Vaigesika Literature) has mentioned it. Out of four copies of the manuscript traced in the N.C.C., we could procure only one - the copy (with the title-Karanatavicara) kept in the manuscript collection of the B.O.R.I., Poona. The manuscript is enlisted as No-159 of 1899-1915.

Karanatavada

Another manuscript entitled Karanatavada without any author's name is found enlisted in the Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India-Office (Part IV., Sanskrit Literature : A Scientific and Technical Literature, VII-Philosophy, by Ernst Windisch and Julius Eggling, London, 1894, pp. 652-3). It numbers 3066. The author's name not being mentioned in the manuscript, the catalogue advises to consult the Catalogus Catalogorum by Theodor Aufrecht (Part-I, 1962, p. 95) which, as we found, hints Karanatavada as another name of the Karanatavicara by Bhavananda. Again the Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrt Manuscripts in the Central Provinces and Berar (C.P.B) by Rai Bahadur Hiralal (Nagpur, 1926, p. 74, No. 766) mentions, while enlisting Karanatavicara of Bhavananda Bhattacarya, that the text is also called Karanatavada. The N.C.C. (op.cit) also gives both the names. Thus we guessed that the manuscript Karanatavada of the India Office Library could be Bhavananda's Karanatavicara. But we were not fully sure about the fact till the physical varification and tallying between both the manuscripts - that of I.O.L. and of B.O.R.I. Because, the N.C.C. and C.P.B. also mention about the Karanatavada by Gopalatatacarya. However, after the physical verification, it was found that Karanatavicara (B.O.R.I.) by Bhavananda (as reads its colophon - "iti Bhavananda Bhattacarya viracite (ta) Karanatavicarah samaptah” is the same as Karanatavada (I.O.L.) which mentions no author. They resemble with each other line by line barring some minor variations and scribe's mistakes.

Karanatavadavicih

So, ascertaining the author of the Karanatavada (I.O.L.) was not a great problem. But a serious problem arose when we came to know that the Karanatavadavicih, the 30th Vada in the Vadavaridhi of Gadadhara Bhattacarya varies very negligibly from Bhavananda's Karanatavicara.

In our opinion, Gadadhara's Karanatavada-vicih (No. 30) cannot prove-that Bhavananda has no such treatise as Karanatavicara. Because, the N.C.C. (Vol. III) mentions (besides the I.O.L. copy) not less than four copies of the manuscript Karanata-vicara of Bhavananda, available in different places including B.O.R.I., Poona. Nor can the absence of a benedictory verse in the Karanatavicara prove that it was not an independent treatise and possibly was an extract from Gadadhara's work. Because, for some or other reason Bhavananda has not given a benedictory verse here. His Akhyatavada tika or Akhyatavadasaramanjari a commentary on Raghunatha Akhyatavada has also no benedictory verse in the beginning. His Pratyaksaloka-saramanjari has also no benedictory verse in the beginning. So the absence of the benedictory verse cannot raise a doubt over the fact that Bhavananda has an independent treatise on causality called Karanatavicara or Karanatavada.

On the other hand, we can't also say that Gadadhara has quoted the whole text of Bhavananda. Because, the purpose of such quotation would not be clear. One can quote the text of his predecessor in order to criticise or justify it and while doing that also one usually refers to the predecessor's name. But Gadadhara has done neither of these.